Thompson Hine | Importers of Record Flood CIT with IEEPA Tariff Refund Complaints

Key Takeaways:

• Hundreds of new cases have been filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) since the November 5, 2025 oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) in the appeal challenging the legality of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) as the statutory authority to impose tariffs and seeking to preserve potential refund rights for IEEPA-based tariffs paid by the plaintiffs.
• On December 15, 2025, the CIT denied a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to suspend liquidation on entries subject to the IEEPA-based tariffs in a “test case.”
• On December 23, 2025, the CIT entered Administrative Order 25-02, which automatically stays all currently unassigned cases brought by importers of record seeking refunds of IEEPA-based tariffs, including any filed on or after December 24, 2025, pending “a final, unappealable decision” by the SCOTUS on the legality of those tariffs—absent a party providing “good cause” indicating why their case merits earlier consideration.
• Despite this standing order, importers of record are continuing to flood the CIT with complaints.

On January 20, 2025—the day Donald Trump began his second term—the Trump administration issued a Presidential Memorandum, “America First Trade Policy,” that confirmed tariffs would be central to President Trump’s trade agenda. The policy memorandum signaled that new tariffs would be introduced both to counter “the loss of tariff revenues…from importing counterfeit products and contraband drugs, e.g., fentanyl,” and to support “a global supplemental tariff” regime aimed at mitigating the U.S. government’s “large and persistent annual trade deficits in goods.”

Although the policy memorandum did not specify the legal basis for these impending tariffs, that authority became clear on February 1, 2025, when President Trump invoked the IEEPA—which authorizes certain countermeasures to address “any unusual and extraordinary threat” originating outside the United States—to impose new tariffs on China (effective February 4, 2025), Canada (effective March 4, 2025), and Mexico (also effective March 4, 2025). These tariffs were based on Trump administration allegations that each country had failed to curb the flow of opioids and other illicit drugs into the United States. Collectively, this IEEPA-based regime is now known as the “Trafficking Tariffs.”

On April 2, 2025, President Trump again invoked the IEEPA, this time asserting “a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships.” This second action imposed a 10% baseline tariff on imports from nearly all U.S. trading partners (effective April 5, 2025), supplemented by additional country-specific rates. This IEEPA-based regime is now referenced as the “Reciprocal Tariffs.”

Both sets of IEEPA-based tariffs have been challenged in court, and the dispute now sits before the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) for final adjudication. (For analysis of the oral argument, see Thompson Hine Update of November 7, 2025.) Importers of record face an important timing issue: Because liquidation generally occurs 314 days after an imported good’s date of entry, the earliest IEEPA-based tariffs—for the Trafficking Tariffs affecting imports from China—are now undergoing liquidation.

What’s Happened So Far

Since the SCOTUS oral arguments, hundreds of new complaints have been filed at the CIT. Initially, most plaintiffs had been small- to mid-size companies, like those in the appeal now with the SCOTUS, Learning Resources and V.O.S. Selections. Notably, a significant surge in overall filings occurred after the first major multinational company filed a complaint on November 28, 2025.

On December 15, 2025, the CIT denied a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to suspend liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to IEEPA-based tariffs in a “test case” challenging those tariffs. Although the CIT did not expressly address the question of whether importers of record that refrain from filing suit now would be precluded from obtaining refunds if the SCOTUS invalidates the IEEPA-based tariffs, the CIT’s reasoning strongly suggests that such importers could reasonably rely on the ruling in choosing not to pursue a case at this stage without forfeiting their potential refund rights. Confirming the Department of Justice’s acknowledgment that the CIT has “the explicit power to order reliquidation and refunds where the government has unlawfully exacted duties,” the court concluded “that importers will not experience irreparable harm [now] as a consequence of liquidation.” Further, judicial estoppel prevents the Government from “later assum[ing] a contrary position to argue that refunds are not available after liquidation.”

On December 23, 2025, the CIT issued Administrative Order 25-02, which provides that all currently unassigned complaints brought by importers of record seeking refunds of IEEPA-based tariffs are automatically stayed upon filing and held in abeyance pending “a final, unappealable decision” from the SCOTUS. As a result, unassigned cases, including those filed on or after December 24, 2025, will be subject to the standing CIT order and will not be assigned to a judge or proceed to merits briefing, although any party may seek to lift the stay by demonstrating good cause indicating why its case merits earlier consideration.

Current Status of the IEEPA-Based Tariff Cases

Notwithstanding the CIT’s denial of the preliminary injunction motion in the test case and the standing Administrative Order 25-02, importers of record seeking refunds for entries subject to IEEPA-based tariffs continue to file complaints at the CIT, which are either docketed in stayed status upon filing or, in the case of previously filed and unassigned cases, placed in stayed status under the standing order.

Importers of record continue to pursue litigation because the SCOTUS has not yet ruled on the legality of these IEEPA-based tariffs, leaving uncertainty over how a refund process would operate if the duties were struck down. They are concerned that even if the SCOTUS were to invalidate the tariffs as unconstitutional, such a ruling may not guarantee refunds for those who have not already initiated litigation—a significant issue for importers of record with entries subject to IEEPA-based tariffs that have already liquidated.

For more information on this topic, please contact the authors:
• Aaron C. Mandelbaum, Associate, THOMPSON HINE LLP 
• David M. Schwartz, Partner, THOMPSON HINE LLP 
• Samir D. Varma, Partner, THOMPSON HINE LLP 
• Michelle Li,  Partner, THOMPSON HINE LLP 
• Francesca M.S. Guerrero, Partner, THOMPSON HINE LLP 
• Scott E. Diamond**, Senior Legislative and Regulatory Policy Advisor, THOMPSON HINE LLP 
• Kerem Bilge , Partner, THOMPSON HINE LLP 

Compliments of Thompson Hine LLP – a member of the EACCNY